Obama ran on a redistribution of the wealth agenda? So, back when he was campaigning, and his opponents characterized things he said as meaning that he wanted to redistribute the wealth, and his supporters shouted that down as typical right-wing distortion, Obama was really laying the groundwork for claiming that he had won a mandate to redistribute the wealth? Incredible!

Err, yes. Sen. John McCain’s campaign spent the last three weeks of the presidential race accusing Obama of “socialist” tendencies because Obama told Sam Wurzelbacher that “if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Obama didn’t really back down on this — he mocked it: “By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.” But he didn’t deny that he planned to cut taxes for middle- and lower-income Americans while raising taxes on the rich.

If Republicans didn’t want to give Obama a mandate for “spreading the wealth,” they probably shouldn’t have made that their message and then lost the election to him.

I think Obama's mockery was a denial of the accusation. If Obama had said, "I didn't just accidentally say 'spread the wealth around,' I really believe in the redistribution of the wealth, and I want you to vote for me because you do too," he would have lost.

183 comments:

Instead of a country dominated by a broad middle class, the US was on track to becoming a Latin American country, with a few wealthy people living in walled compounds, venturing out only in their armored limousines guarded by armed outriders, and a great mass of poor people, picking through dumps to find something to eat or trade.

"Instead of a country dominated by a broad middle class, the US was on track to becoming a Latin American country, with a few wealthy people living in walled compounds, venturing out only in their armored limousines guarded by armed outriders, and a great mass of poor people, picking through dumps to find something to eat or trade.

You right-wing shill, you. The article does not say "redistribution of wealth", it says "rebalancing the distribution of wealth." If you can't see the difference then you're just too stupid to vote. Thank goodness Obama won despite the ignorance of people like you.

Damn it Althouse, don't you know the difference between "redistributing" wealth and "rebalancing the distribution" of wealth?

The Obama distinction, or fig leaf, is to spin it that they'll better equalize the allocation of income as it is earned in the market, not so much redistribute huge disparities of wealth after it has been earned. This is based on Reich-type arguments about "investments" in education, unionization, etc.

Of course, the question is will Obama's policies result in a more equal market distribution of a growing income pie, or just share the misery of a stagnant or shrinking pie, a condition that itself will have to be remedied by redistribution through transfer payments?

why don't we distribute wealth based on how much each person did to earn it?

That's never been the case, unfortunately. What did investment bankers do to earn the shiploads of money thrown at them? Anybody who thought that paying a bar $1000 for a bottle of vodka (so that they could mix their own drinks) was a good deal, is not someone I want handling my money.

The private ownership of property is the only key to our freedoms.The Obama family gurus, Chavez, Castro, Lenin, Marx, all have that clearly in focus. Public ownership of property means no one owns anything so no one will work and no one will be paid, but the rulers with the police state powers will kill you at their pleasure. Someone alert the confused people that think the government means them no harm.

The kind of willful blindness to Obama's clearly expressed sentiments that was shown at the ballot box last November is exceeded only by the willful blindness of people who think we have no real enemies, only friends whose grievances haven't yet been accommodated.

What's it going to take, a nuke in Times Square? Complete government takeover of the economy? Reapportionment based on census figures generated by ACORN? Union goons visiting Wal Mart employees at their homes at night to sign union cards?

"What did investment bankers do to earn the shiploads of money thrown at them?"

What everyone else does--convince someone else to pay them that much.

Seriously, are you still under that bizarre illusion that people get paid or should get paid according to some objective measure of utility? There's no such thing. If you can convince your boss to pay you a $1 million salary, congratulations, because you've just earned a $1 million salary.

I've known I-bankers. They work crazy hours, have an incredibly high stress job (produce or you're out) AND have to live in manhattan, eat out alot (no time to cook) and wear expensive clothes (can't look poor, after all...)

They may make alot, but they also have a higher baseline cost of that.

Contrast with Librarians, who get paid MUCH less... Librarians can wear business casual, never work more than 40 hours a week, have job security and lots of vacation time, can live in less expensive areas (if they choose to work somewhere with a lower cost of living) and have a pretty low stress job (buying books and answering reference questions!)

If you actually look at things like hours spent on the job, local costs of living and stress levels, these disparities in pay start to make sense.......

Not only are you worth as much as someone will pay you, but a job must pay enough that SOMEONE thinks it's worth the inconvenience....

It's the Right that hires them. They work cheap, they accept unsafe working conditions, and if they ever dared to complain, they'd be on the next bus to Mexico. A steady supply of illegal aliens is essential to Right-wing policies of unionbusting and wagebusting.

The Left has resigned themselves to their continued presence, and is working to keep them from being exploited.

The Left has resigned themselves to their continued presence, and is working to keep them from being exploited.

I suppose if they really cared, the best way to keep them from being exploited would be to demand strict immigration enforcement but that means they wouldn't have a ready made constituency now would it?

I admit the Left contains some mushyheads who think we're all God's children. But eliminate the demand -- by enforcing the laws requiring employers to obtain proof of legal residency -- and you will eliminate the supply. Consider that, for the moment at least, you don't need a fence to keep Americans out of Mexico, because life is so much better here.

It's the Right that hires them. They work cheap, they accept unsafe working conditions, and if they ever dared to complain, they'd be on the next bus to Mexico. A steady supply of illegal aliens is essential to Right-wing policies of unionbusting and wagebusting.

You know... I hear this. It even makes logical sense.

BUT when I hear news reports of an INS raid on a factory somewhere, it's not the conservatives who are crying over it. If what you said were actually *true* instead of just sounding logical, wouldn't conservatives fuss when a factory or pork processing plant got raided and closed down?

When Oklahoma and, IIRC, Arizona started cracking down on employers, they started really *effectively* cracking down on the employment side of the problem, who fussed? I don't recall conservatives fussing over that. I recall fussing on the news, sad stories about how illegals were moving away, going elsewhere, because they couldn't find work. I don't think that was conservative fussing. What I heard was conservatives praising the employer based enforcement.

Not even nasty selfish Republican business owners are going to fuss because they are actually in competition with those owners who hire illegals. Anyone who *doesn't* hire illegals is going to welcome enforcement against their competitors.

"But eliminate the demand -- by enforcing the laws requiring employers to obtain proof of legal residency -- and you will eliminate the supply."

I call bullshit. The Dems struck every provision out of the porkulus bill that would have required E-verify for recipients of direct aid and the employees of any projects created by this piece of crap.

I remember in the Wall St boom of the 1980's I would go drinking in the Seaport and then we would meet some girls and jump in cabs and go to Via Brazil for some capirina's and filet mignon and dancing to the hot Brazilian jass band they had there. The investment banker guy would often pick up the tab for everybody. The bastard. I mean the cab drivers and waitresses and chefs and musicians what the fuck they want to make a freakin' living? Those lousy bastards.

But eliminate the demand -- by enforcing the laws requiring employers to obtain proof of legal residency -- and you will eliminate the supply. Consider that, for the moment at least, you don't need a fence to keep Americans out of Mexico, because life is so much better here

Well I hate to tell you this but the Left has a lot more mushyheads who stand in the way of doing exactly what you propose. Unless you're being willfully blind, every time immigration raids would take place on businesses, the Left along with every Hispanic rights group under the sun would come out screaming....yes you guessed it...RACISM.

The minute someone starts talking about doing exactly what you stated, enforcing the laws on the books they're denounced as a racist.

But eliminate the demand -- by enforcing the laws requiring employers to obtain proof of legal residency -- and you will eliminate the supply.

We agree. It would be really great if both sides could really push this. People who want a fence built are *not* secretly hoping to keep a steady stream of illegal workers entering the country. Those people might not give up fence ideas, but they most surely would lend their voice to enforcement on the employer side of the issue. This is nearly a custom-made opportunity for a bipartisan effort.

So, is the question actually, are the liberals who say they want to crack down on evil employers more concerned with doing that, or more concerned with avoiding ideological minuteman cooties?

Consider that, for the moment at least, you don't need a fence to keep Americans out of Mexico, because life is so much better here.

And the real solution becomes doing something to encourage better economic policies in Mexico and more work opportunities there... something other than relying on a whole bunch of illegals in the US wiring money home to their families.

Too busy looking up Joe the Plumber's personal info to remember what sparked that whole invasion -- I believe Joe was having trouble with BHO's pitch.

BHO (with editorializing) "So all I want to do is – I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little (!!) bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well - even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that (HA! I am not sure BHO knows what hard work is) – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little (!) bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you (? see -- it's JTP's fault he doesn't understand) to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success (heh) – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.” (?)

BHO "...I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Nice. "you" spread ... not "I" spread or "we" spread ... This man does not take responsibility for anything.

Apparently, supply and demand only works for FLS when those in demand are here illegally. But apparently he doesn't want it to apply to investment bankers who are, unfortunately for them, here legally.

That's never been the case, unfortunately. What did investment bankers do to earn the shiploads of money thrown at them?

For the most part, they made money for others. A lot of it.

The problem is not that they were paid when they made a lot of money for others, but rather, that they didn't lose it when they lost the money. Heads I win, Tails I break even.

But, contrary to the apparent wishes of FLS, much of wealth these days is made in making man and markets more efficient. Bill Gates created far, far, more wealth with his PCs, etc. and the productivity that they have brought than he would have if he had gone to work on an assembly line making cars, or, even, going to work in his father's law firm. Making hundreds of millions more productive is far more useful than making a couple more cars. And that is why he made so much money.

Let me add that I, for one, was not preventing FLS from going into investment banking and making so much money that he could afford a $1,000 bottle of Vodka. I would suspect that either he couldn't get such a job, or decided that he didn't want the lifestyle that goes with it.

Getting back to the original quote - the reality is that Obama did NOT run on those issues. Rather, to a very great extent, esp. the redistributing the wealth, he hid the issue, and pretended that he was misunderstood when he was caught talking about spreading the wealth around.

Indeed, most of these issues were played down as much as possible with the general electorate. The big thing that Obama ran on was that he was running against the war and President Bush.

Yes, if you actually looked at his policy positions on a lot of these subjects, often available (at some time, except when too inconvenient) on his campaign's web site, you would know where he stood.

But these issues are not what he pushed with the voters. Instead, I suspect a lot of them read into him a moderation that those who read where he actually stood on these issues, knew he didn't have.

But eliminate the demand -- by enforcing the laws requiring employers to obtain proof of legal residency -- and you will eliminate the supply

Lars beat me to it. There was a proposed amendment to require any employer receiving stimulus money to use e-verify to check legal residency of workers, but the Dem Senate didn't allow it. They even blocked debate about it.

The investment banker guys are the ones who pay for all the Brazilian Bikini waxes for all the girls at Privilege, the Doll House and Flashdancers. It looks like Oscar Gamble is going to make a big comeback.

Blue said: "Seriously, are you still under that bizarre illusion that people get paid or should get paid according to some objective measure of utility? There's no such thing. If you can convince your boss to pay you a $1 million salary, congratulations, because you've just earned a $1 million salary."

The Doll House is an emporium on Murray Street where young single mothers can earn the money that will help them obtain an advanced degree at Passaic Community college by reenacting the artful dances they dimly remember from ballet class for very polite men in suits from Wall St. who are reenacting a dimly remember ritual from their childhood in which they felt safe and comforted by the beauty and succor of the human breast. This way of life has been endangered by the current unpleasantness and both the buxom young mothers and the generous young men will soon become an endangered species much like the sand plover or the snail darter.

No FLS - I actually don't know any one like that. Wow, you really do drink the Kool aid! Who comes up with this stuff? Is that that Wilder Walderama guy from that 70s show? Are you that easily duped by the internet?

I am sure a-holes exist. They exist in ever industry.

All the guys I work with (went back to the same firm I started with in 88) either have steady girlfriends/boyfriends (and are repectful partners) or are family men. They are so average, socially, they are boriing. They rarely go out because they have to so much for business and the young ones in the age group of the idiots in the video are at the office practically 24/7!

Yeah, the older MDs have nice weekend houses, but they spend them with their kids, not models.

They also donate a tremendous amount of time and money to schools, charitable, community organizations.

Sorry to disagree with your very skewed view of greedy wall street, maaaaaaaaan

My money wasn't "distributed" to me, I earned it by working for my employers over the years.

One important thing to point out is that wealth isn't "distributed" in the first place, it's earned. Describing it as "distribution" disparages the right we all have to the fruits of our own labor, thought, and initiative.

My money wasn't "distributed" to me, I earned it by working for my employers over the years.

One important thing to point out is that wealth isn't "distributed" in the first place, it's earned. Describing it as "distribution" disparages the right we all have to the fruits of our own labor, thought, and initiative. 1:46 PM

You only "earned" it because you say so. If I can convince enough people that think otherwise, we can vote in the right politicians to take it away from you because we will decide you didn't "earn" it. That's Barack Obama's campaign in a nutshell!

The entire jihad against private aviation is nothing more then envy and hate. There is no rational reason to be against any particular industry except for such capriciousness. So we'll destroy the private jet industry, what's next destroy Car Toys? After all, who really needs a fancy new car stereo with 5-CD changer and I-Pod plug?

"The problem is not that they were paid when they made a lot of money for others, but rather, that they didn't lose it when they lost the money. Heads I win, Tails I break even. "

Bruce, that's just not true. First of all, not every part of a bank did poorly. There are funds who weren't affected by the crisis (and they didn't contribute to it - most of wall street didn't).

Even still, those bankers who did not contribute to the down turn (and even if you were a part of that side of the bank, most people are the decision makers) if they worked for a big bank - still had to lay people off and take huge pay cuts. HUGE. One person I know, 85%!

5,000 laid off last year and more on the way according to the some public statements...I think we are paying a big price...there are the John Thain's and there are the rest of us who have taken it on the chin.

Even someone like me, in administration, just someone back office making less than 6 figures, no raise, no 2 week pay at xmas. I am just glad to still have my job.

Obama has now made the politics of envy the cornerstone of the 2nd New Deal.

Milton Friedman had the best response to the many-headed hydra of socialism:

Friedman: "The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat! Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way! In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are, where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.”

Donahue: "But it (greed) seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system"

Friedman: “And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar reward virtue? You think a Hitler reward virtue? You think, excuse me, if you pardon me, do you think the American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow, than economic self interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted… Just tell me where in the world you find these angels, who are guide to organize society for us? I don’t even trust you to do that …"

so let's see if i get this right ....... you're upset that the "redistribution of weath" hasn't been tallied to a larger amount and using that as an excuse to Obama-bash ??

lol... you anti-Obama crowd really are desperate for something to whine and complain about.wouldn't it be much easier to just admit that he's not as bad as the right-wing-nuts had led you to belive by their dishonest propoganda ?

Only the companies that were in the mortgage-backed security scam. Who does that leave out?

How we got into this mess:

Mortgage loans made to dubious credit risks carried attractive interest rates to compensate for the risks, and attractive commissions for the loan originators -- generally independent mortgage brokers. Wall Street firms bundled such loans together and arbitrarily sliced into tranches and given ratings by the bond rating agencies, using risk of default models devised from the performance of conventional loans. Credit derivatives were created to spread the risk of default. Then derivatives were made of the derivatives. And derivatives were made of those derivatives. None of the i-bankers or hedge fund gurus knew the risk they (and us) faced.

I have to think that all the lenders, bundlers, slicers, and investors underestimated the risk, because the underlying loans were secured by real estate. However, the everincreasing number of foreclosures has shoved down market values far below the outstanding loan amounts. If the real estate death spiral is further accelerated by an unemployment death spiral, the pain will keep continuing.

The default in the underlying loans caused the hit to the credit derivatives that, for example, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wachovia, and UBS created and sold, taking their parent banks down with them. Those looking for a villain must remember that Republican Senator Phil Gramm slipped anti-credit derivative regulation legislation through as part of the spending bill in December, 2000, at the height of the Bush-Gore legal battle.

EDH said... Damn it Althouse, don't you know the difference between "redistributing" wealth and "rebalancing the distribution" of wealth?

Pretty true, as FLS and others pointed out, America was slowly headed for Latin American territory with the Gulf between the Rich and everyone else growing. As America's Ruling Elites became to believe they Existed solely for the purpose of enriching other members of the ruling Elites. Daschle lost his job? Well, lets take care of him. Give Tom 3 million a year to schmooze other Ruling Elites to see it from the perspective of us Plutocrats on the other side...One Rich guy has to scratch the back of another Club Member, you know.

Blue said: "Seriously, are you still under that bizarre illusion that people get paid or should get paid according to some objective measure of utility? There's no such thing. If you can convince your boss to pay you a $1 million salary, congratulations, because you've just earned a $1 million salary."

Except the way it came to work under Corporatism was one younger member of the privileged classes by school or breeding talking to a more senior member of the company about a big fat bonus for the young lad on the country club golf links. An entitled lad who BTW, had friends who had friends who Daddies sat on the Boss's own executive compensation committee.And a million dollar raise or "performance bonus" even for the inner circle members of a company headed for straight for the La Brea Tar Pits became a lot easier to get than a modest pay increase for "ungrateful" engineers, salesmen, secretaries even at prosperous firms.

And those in "lesser jobs" saw the job security their parents and grandparents have disappear and were told any resistance to decreased benefits and longer work hours for salaried at the same pay was the way things were and how "lucky they were to have jobs foreigners hunger for" as the pay and bonus increases at the top accelerated. And few things make a lifelong skilled professional or worker told by society that if they bust ass and did well at work that they would have a good life for their families madder than suddenly being lectured...As natural conservative, Reagan Democrats or multigenerational Republicans that it is "their fault" they chose to be an engineer, an accountant, a cop, a scientist - instead of being a banker.

The pendulum between Robber Baron thieves and excess of egalitarianism swings. But also a pendulum that swings too far in rewarding or over-rewarding those at the top or in the parasitic underclass who create no wealth - and the people of true productivity that you can qualitatively assess the amount of wealth or contribution of the US infrastructure necessary to create wealth for others.

When you look at societal contribution that way, a manager of agricultural or heavy equipement barge traffic on a 200-mile stretch of the Mississippi or the barge pilots themselves create more new wealth for our society than an executive compensation committee lawyer who himself gets a 700K paycheck and 380K in options in a bad year.

The 20 people at an industrial fire alarm company each paid under 80K and the Owner with a higher wealth - who save 90 companies in a Metro area over 78 million in insurance costs? The firefighters who respond so well, the firms and over 3,000 landlords get another 90 million cut in insurance costs?

Wealth added, but under the Corporatist "mutual backscratching" Club, the actual contributors to wealth gain have been screwed.

And lets add that the richer you get, after around a 95-125K annual compensation, the less total government taxes and fees you pay on each dollar earned.

"It's the Right that hires them. They work cheap, they accept unsafe working conditions, and if they ever dared to complain, they'd be on the next bus to Mexico."

Well, THAT's certainly a load of crap. I grew up in sugar beet country in NW MN. The farmers were the ones hiring the illegals to work in the fields, and the farmers (due to CRP and other subsidies) were almost monolithically Dems.

"But also a pendulum that swings too far in rewarding or over-rewarding those at the top or in the parasitic underclass who create no wealth - and the people of true productivity that you can qualitatively assess the amount of wealth or contribution of the US infrastructure necessary to create wealth for others."

Who is the arbiter of rewards?Who is the issuer of the metrics of productivity?What economic pope blesses the truly productive?Show me the qualitative assessments of contribution?What bureau or board will make such decisions?

Alex:What I want the leftist to do is define what "earning one's wealth" means, since they obviously mean anyone in the top 5% didn't do so.Yeah, I've always wanted to know that. Especially since I'm in the top 5%. I didn't use to be. I used to be in the bottom 20% when I was a young soldier. Then I worked hard and over the years earned more money as I became more valuable to my employers. Along the way, I earned my income according the leftist types. Until one day I magically became part of the top 5%. The day before I was in the top 5.1% and I was still hard working, a darling of the left. Then I crossed that magical line, how dare I!, and became one of the evil blood sucking wealthy who need to have their wealth distribution rebalanced.

Forgetting the leftwing moonbats for a second, I think a lot of Americans have a certain view of rich people shaped by movies(i.e., Wall Street). Also lots of rich people are trust fund babies which most people don't like either. Bottom line is that being rich was never loved in America if you look back at the history. Basically you just have to put your head down and soldier on despite the hate from society.

Except the way it came to work under Corporatism was one younger member of the privileged classes by school or breeding talking to a more senior member of the company about a big fat bonus for the young lad on the country club golf links.

What world do you live in? I live and work in the corporate offices of a very large company, the third such I have worked for. I rarely see that sort of thing occur in real life. But, I do see it happen a lot in the movies and in political institutions. Hmmmmm

"The problem is not that they were paid when they made a lot of money for others, but rather, that they didn't lose it when they lost the money

No. The problem is the disingenuous (big word for liars) media, the idiots who report and the ignorant public....all of whom don't understand the difference between compensation as dollars, real money and compensation in the form of stock or stock options. The taxation and reporting as income of stock options is very complex and depends on what kind of option or what kind of stock the employee is given.

Much of the executive compensation is in stock options which are calculated as a dollar value, fair market value, when reported by the Corporation in the compensation package. Also restricted stock that can't be sold before a certain time. Or vested shares of common stock which they also can't sell before a time limit.

It isn't all cash. So when they say that the CFO of BAC got 1.2 million in compensation, realize that much of it is in illiquid stock options or stock that has declined since the compensation was reported.

Think about it. Hypothetically; The executive of BAC was given stock options in December of 07 to be able to buy BAC at a price of $30 when the shares are trading at $42. HOWEVER, he can't exercise his option until December 08. What a deal. How valuable is that stock option to be able to buy BAC at $30 when the price in 08 was about $14. Think the executive is making out like a fat hog on that one?

Think the executive made out big time on that restricted stock that he was given in 07 that he can't sell until 09?

Up until we became a socialist country, how was it anybodies business other than the stock holders of the company how much the employees are paid? It wasn't.

Of course now that the Government owns industry and we are being raped by the Government to pay for all of this....I guess we should have a say so now. Now we can tell everyone just how much money they are allowed to make and how much they are allowed to keep and even what they are allowed to spend the remainder on.

Everyone feel better now. Keep people from being any better than the rest of the herd. Keep your head down. Don't stand out from the crowd and by all means do NOT try to be better than the drone next to you in line for your monthly allotment of Soma.

Instead of a country dominated by a broad middle class, the US was on track to becoming a Latin American country, with a few wealthy people living in walled compounds, venturing out only in their armored limousines guarded by armed outriders, and a great mass of poor people, picking through dumps to find something to eat or trade.

Well, I don't see anything in the stimulus or anything Obama's pledged that would address such a gross imbalance. It's all pretty small beer. $13 a week? Maybe you could use that to take a cab to a better class of dumpster.

I hope someone runs for office on the idea that wealthy people should be taxed at a, mmm, 85 percent marginal rate on income above, ohh, $200K, with all the money thus raised to be sent as a check to anyone earning less than, ohh let's say $40,000, with the most going to the people who need it most, those who earn nothing.

If so many of you have this banana republic vision of the US, we really need to debate this and have an election about it. Let's see how many people agree with you.

And lets add that the richer you get, after around a 95-125K annual compensation, the less total government taxes and fees you pay on each dollar earned.

Where did you get your crack at? I want some, it must be really good. If what you claim is true, then the fact that the top 5% pay 50% of all taxes in this country would not be a fact. Actually, to quote the IRS (indirectly):

... the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.

If you doubt this single source, try a google search on what the top 5 % pay in taxes.

Your claim simply doesn't work, although it is great left wing populist rhetoric. If you like, you can try my "effective tax rate" on for size, it's over 20%. Folks earning around 100K/year pay an "effective tax rate" between 12 and 15%. I pay enough taxes to employ someone at a middle class wage on an annual basis.

Now, I really am not bothered too much by how much I pay in taxes. After all, I earn a whole lot of money too. What I'm bothered by is this notion that I live a life of leisure, don't deserve my income and totally walk on the backs of the middle class. I'm bothered by the notion that "the top 5%" got over under Bush, as well. In fact, we pay more of the total taxes paid in this country now than we did under Clinton.

Interestingly, most of the lefty types have figured out that spending money and buying things is needed to keep people employed in our economy. They just seem to not have grasped that not only do I pay 50% of the country's taxes, I also do 50% of the country's spending. If you tax me more, I will have less money to spend. Me spending less means that less products and services will be purchased which means less employment. That's bad for those bottom 95%, don't you think?

Cedarford says "Except the way it came to work under Corporatism was one younger member of the privileged classes by school or breeding talking to a more senior member of the company about a big fat bonus for the young lad on the country club golf links."

Are you and FLS the same person?

In my 20 years, I have known one guy who came from money (and dad was a fed judge). All others had very middle or working class up bringings and put themselves through school. They didn't get into the Ivy League on legacy, but on scholarship. The success stories I know almost all come from non-priveleged backrgounds. Their children on the other hand...not so successful. In the last 10 years, many come from recent firs generation immigrant families including one guy I worked with 5 years ago who was from a Vietnamese "boat family" - a refugee - and one of 13 children. I think they were so successful precisely because it wasn't handed to them.

I suppose the charcterization of people gives some people relief. It's just not true of most.

I think it was meant to be perceived as one. Even you, Althouse, pointed out how he didn't accidentally use words but would hedge what he said in language that wasn't nearly as clear as it seemed to be.

He *didn't* deny the redistribution, but he sure wanted everyone to think he did. He didn't say that Joe the Plumber got it right, he mocked him. His followers mocked him, investigated him, and drug him through the mud. And yes, shouted it all down as typical right-wing distortion, lies and fear-mongering.

We *absolutely* were supposed to believe that any suggestion that Obama wanted to redistribute wealth was not only wrong, but a malicious lie.

And now we're being told that was what he was about all along and what we elected him to do?

It's clear from these comments a new generation of wealth redistribution morons is about to get a lesson in 70's style über inflation, price controls and atmospheric interest rates.

Yeah, when you borrow 3.27 trillion, you cause inflation. Between raising my taxes and squeezing me with inflation, I won't be spending as much. Someone has to make the goods and services I purchase. If I purchase less, then there are less someone's employed. This is very basic economics. FLS and Cedarford appear to not understand, though.

why don't we distribute wealth based on how much each person did to earn it?

Which I took to mean a quantum of wealth corresponding to a quantum of effort. That doesn't exist in our society. An equal amount of effort exerted in various disciplines does not yield the same amount of reward for each.

Nor is a quantum of wealth matched to a quantum of accomplishment. The i-bankers were actually being rewarded for wrecking the economy, which indicated to me that their compensation scheme was poorly devised.

Some commenters seem to think I'm taking the point of view of the delivery men in the Dire Straits song. No.

Now look at them yo-yos thats the way you do itYou play the guitar on the mtvThat aint workin thats the way you do itMoney for nothin and chicks for freeNow that aint workin thats the way you do itLemme tell ya them guys aint dumbMaybe get a blister on your little fingerMaybe get a blister on your thumb

I'm not sure I agree. It clearly was an attempt to put the accusation out of the bounds of discourse. There was certainly a pretty strenuous attempt by Obama partisans to harass Joe Wurzelbacher for having brought it out, which could certainly be seen as an attempt to intimidate anyone else who might dare to bring it up. But it doesn't seem as if that's strictly a denial.

Obama is achieving his lifelong dream of killing capitalism in the US and those that voted for him are very happy with that outcome. Even if he had said "I am a communist, anti-American, a muslim (ok, he did say that), he still would have won - his supporters in my area are just that rabid - they hate the United States with the same fervor he does.

Here's more on Dave Weigel. He wrote a post about me, and then refused to approve a comment I left showing how he's wrong. Not exactly a credible source.

As for Weigel's comment, that confuses progressive taxation with redistribution for the heck of it. What BHO's statement to Joe was supporting was the latter, an evening out of incomes rather than simply everyone paying their fair share. It was at heart a Marxist concept. It's a subtle distinction, and therefore one that hacks seize on in order to mislead.

Can I tell you how much it irritates me that they refuse to call Mr. Wultzelbacker “Joe”.

Like, they are still so petty about an election THAT THEY WON that they have to make an issue of something so completely innocuous as a private citizen going by his middle name. I mean, is that what passes for a joke over there? Really?God.

"EDH said... Damn it Althouse, don't you know the difference between "redistributing" wealth and "rebalancing the distribution" of wealth?

Pretty true..."

Yikes, when I wrote that I was being facetious, simply to point-out the intellectual "fig leaf" that is used as cover to deny the redistributionist imperative.

Althouse's reply to David Weigel that "Obama's mockery was a denial of the accusation" shows me that she understands the Three Card Monty that is being played here by Team Obama, and hopefully recognized my playful sarcasm better than did Cedarford.

If the loss of 2% of that part of your income which exceeds $250K will be a hardship for you, consider those more numerous folks who will be earning nothing at all.

Or consider the cleaning service that is now asked to come in only once a month instead of twice... multiplied by the number of total clients, and resulting in one or more of the Merry Maids who used to be employed earning nothing at all.

I love how in all these discussions that the only rats are bankers. Ignored are the hundreds of thousands of home owners who knowingly lied on their loan applications, who borrowed down payments and claimed they'd earned it themselves, who bought houses on ARMS without bothering to read the contracts.... These people weren't ignorant or scammed; they knew they were getting something for nothing. Many didn't care, others cheers, believing they were sticking it to the man, so to speak--getting what was "owed" them.

This mess is due to dishonest people from all walks of life and levels of income and the politicians who cater to them, including Obama.

I am not complaining about stock options that crash when the company goes into the tank because of those at the top screwing it up. And I know a number of people who have lost all their value in such as a result of the recent stock market crash.

My complaint is that there appear to be a number at the very tops of their large companies, and in the parts of the banking and securities industries that crashed walked away with huge amounts of money, leaving their stockholders holding the (now empty) bag. Some of this was in stock and stock options, of course, and some of those were cashed out before their companies crashed. And some was in what many consider to be obscene bonuses.

Contrary to FLS, et al., I have no problem with paying a CEO millions if he makes billions for his company - long term. It is the fudging earnings and doubling down when investments start to tumble that result in short term bonuses, etc. and long term failure that I fault.

My complaint is more that of corporate governance than redistribution.

For DBQ:"...every day about one-fifth of the workforce stays home in Sweden . These “potential” workers are receiving disability benefits or are on sick leave. “Almost everyone who requests sick leave is granted it...

The Swedish government’s aim is to help bridge the gap between sickness and work. But many take advantage of these benefits and use them as permanent income, as evidenced by the increase in disability and sick leave over the past decade. “The sickness rate of a Swede in his or her twenties, for example, is higher than the overall absence rate in all but four European countries...

Sweden ’s tax burden was 50.5 percent of GDP in 2004. The OECD notes that some Swedes avoid taxes by working fewer hours or “operating in the black economy.” source

Cedarford - "And lets add that the richer you get, after around a 95-125K annual compensation, the less total government taxes and fees you pay on each dollar earned."

Eric responds - Where did you get your crack at? I want some, it must be really good.

Funny, you must be one of the few that has not accepted the validity or failed to disprove the simple Warren Buffet Paradox.

In which he notes he pays less taxes on each dollar he makes then his 90K a year executive secretary. Warren explains it with some simple observations and explains it isn't magic.

1. People don't care what government tax or fee they pay. They want disposable income. If it is lost to sales taxes, sewer fees, FICA, Fed Income tax..its all the same from a personal or economic perspective.

2. He gains his advantage over the Secretary because most of his money comes from capital gains, options taxed at capital gains rates vs the higher taxes a 90K worker pays on income earned. He compounds his advantage because all regressive taxes take a smaller bite out of each of his dollars than his workers. And except for a medicare residue, all his money is FICA-tax free after his 1st day at work each year, while each dollar the Secretary gets has a big chunk of FICA taken away from it.

3. Buffett notes he doesn't use the shelters and trusts only available to the super-rich to lower his taxes even further.

4. And notes that the inequities increase even more and settle on middle-income and lower Americans when you look at discretionary income left after not just total taxes, but when necessities, defined by economists as the poverty line - are factored in. Which means even less of each dollar of middle class and below is available to spend as one chooses, for the very wealthy, their discretionary part remains at 70-80%.

Eric - the fact that the top 5% pay 50% of all taxes in this country would not be a fact.

No Eric, unfortunately for you, your fact is not a fact. People care about total taxes. Ball lickers for the Corporatists pretend to say the debate is ONLY about the Federal Income tax. After all the regressive taxes, fees, corporate, and state taxes and fees on 3rd parties (business, renter, foreign revenue sources) are factored in your poor persecuted private jet owner crowd is slightly 20% of Total Taxes & fees levied by Government, on American citizens.

Cry me a river. If you want sympathy that people with 28% of the total wealth pay 20% of the Total Taxes and fees levied, you won't find any pity here.

As for the duplicitous claim that the Noble Fatcats pay out 50% (excluding all taxes but Fed income) and that on their wonderful shoulders they sacrifice all too much...It is like a dictator's family and relations and loyal generals in Africa or Latin America complaining the few thousand of them have 90% of their nations wealth yet suffer by paying 70% of taxes...You won't win many allies by saying the people you worship at the top of the Pyramid suffer so by being so rich they are forced to fork over more tax money than a school teacher does.

I'll cut a deal, Eric... We go back to the concept that each citizen should contribute their fair share to the country out of each dollar they make.

Tell it to your idols Hannity and Rush, the premiere Corporatist and Wall Street banker apologists.When the simple Warren Buffet Paradox comes up, those guys have conniptions explaining it away.

My complaint is more that of corporate governance than redistribution.

Corporate governance is a legitimate complaint. But it is one that should be brought by the stockholders in the company and the Board of Directors of the company. It isn't a function of government to decide who makes too much or put a cap on what companies can pay their employees. The market forces will decide.

If a company is failing because managment and oversight by the Board is lacking. Stock prices will reflect the health or sickness of a company and the shareholders dumping their interest in a company. As the total market value of the shares drop, competent management or the Board will/should change executives and bring the company around. IF they can't or won't do that then the firm dies a natural death or is aquired by a healthy company.

When the government gets in the middle and props up these sick companies they are making everything much much worse and prolonging the agony. They should have let companies like GM go Chapter 11 and sell off assets and restructure debt. Same thing for Banks and Investment Banks. Some other healthy company would have bought those "toxic assets" at a bargin price. Now we the tax payers are stuck on the hook instead of letting free market principles work.

Mark to Market rules are what have artifically devalued the securites which have an actual intrinsic value much higher than the current market. But we can't expect our Congress loons to understand this....it takes a couple of brain cells rubbing together to accomplish that.

Eric - If you tax me more, I will have less money to spend. Me spending less means that less products and services will be purchased which means less employment. That's bad for those bottom 95%, don't you think?

Nope, it just shifts the discretionary income broader and to more people if you or more likely the fatcats you worship, pay the same total taxes on each dollar earned as a hard-woking middle class us citizen.

**************EDH said... Damn it Althouse, don't you know the difference between "redistributing" wealth and "rebalancing the distribution" of wealth?

Pretty true..."

Yikes, when I wrote that I was being facetious, simply to point-out the intellectual "fig leaf" that is used as cover to deny the redistributionist imperative.

The distinction is clear to me. Redistributing wealth is taken what Peter earned to give to Paul.

Changing the structure of distribution is saying going forward, if Peter and Paul earn a buck, they pay the same amount of each buck to the government.

Or, "in the future" people who volunteer for the military get 3% lopped off their taxes and get 1% taken off as Vets. That is "redistributionist" as well. It is letting people know that the structure has changed and they can adjust...

And if the people conclude that it isn't right that welfare mammies now can get free plastic surgery in Cali, or that Wall Street Execs stock options should be taxed as regular income instead of a lower rate, or want the hedge fund manager loophole closed?

Well, all those actions are ultimately "redistributionist" but calls we theoretically can do as a democracy - unless the Ruling Elites in DC subvert it..

In which he notes he pays less taxes on each dollar he makes then his 90K a year executive secretary

He was talking about Social Security wage cap. "The wage base for the Social Security portion will rise to $106,800 for 2009, up $4,800 from last year". So yes. For every dollar of EARNED income over 106,800 Warren Buffet doesn't pay his employee share of SS. There is no cap on Medicare.

However, I doubt that Warren Buffet is collecting W-2 wages. Besides if he is so concerned about it.....he is perfectly free to not use all of the tax loopholes and voluntarily pay more.

"The entire jihad against private aviation is nothing more then envy and hate."

Envy? Wasn't it something like 600 private jets that flew into DC for Obama's transfiguration? Isn't it Laurie David that gave us the term "Gulfstream liberal"? In my experience, billionaiares and multimillionaires are grossly overrepresented among the Obama backers. They spent $584 million getting Obamessiah elected. I think they just want the corporate jets out of the way, so that they aren't delayed so much taking off.

"The entire jihad against private aviation is nothing more then envy and hate."

True and this jihad is going to put people out of work.

One of my husband's clients has a G5 at his personal disposal.

He's big muckety muck on several Boards of companies prominently in the news lately and the nicest man you would ever want to meet. He grew up on a ranch in a western state and was not from a wealthy family and earned his positions through hard work and brains. That's beside the point, however.

The point of this is that if he can't fly at least this many people will be unemployed. The 4 pilots that are assigned to his plane. Two who are flying and two on standby. The numerous people who service the plane. The people who make the planes. Who work at the airports and provide fuel and field maitenance. Who market and advertise the planes. Multiply this one case by thousands.

I know. A luxury item. Nevertheless it is a segement of the economy that will be eliminated by the envy. Remember the economic fiasco when the government decided to put a luxury tax on boats? They're at it again, talking about briging back the luxury tax on larger cars or non "green" (puke) vehicles and wanting to punish industries that the government (socialists) don't approve of.

DBQ: You could argue that anything past basic sustenance and a warm fire is a "luxury item". I think any liberals talking about the evils of luxuries should immediately throw away their IPods and disconnect their cable/internet connections to prove how virtuous they are!

FLS conflates Mexican women and maids. Nicely done - I got called a racist for suggesting that a Mexican woman might be in the US to clean houses. So, let me return the favor - FLS - you are hereby, officially, by your own standards, a racist.

Obama ran on a redistribution of the wealth agenda? So, back when he was campaigning, and his opponents characterized things he said as meaning that he wanted to redistribute the wealth, and his supporters shouted that down as typical right-wing distortion, Obama was really laying the groundwork for claiming that he had won a mandate to redistribute the wealth? Incredible!

Wait a minute, Mom, where are you getting this from? I don't remember Obama ever denying he's in favor of redistribution of wealth.

He said he wants to "spread the wealth around." That's synonymous with "redistribute wealth."

Then McCain ridiculed him over and over for saying he wants to "spread the wealth around" (though McCain himself used to want this back when he was against the Bush tax cuts on the grounds that they favor the rich). But did Obama contradict McCain on this point? Not that I remember. You can read the debate transcript, where this came up over and over.

It seems like you're assuming that surely Obama would never admit he wanted to redistribute wealth; surely he must have excused his "spread the wealth" comment as a slip of the tongue. But is that what really happened? Again, I just don't think that's accurate; he said he wanted to redistribute the wealth, though maybe not in so many words. (Many liberal commentators made this point at the time.)

Also, did anyone really have any doubt from looking at his official campaign platform that he was in favor of making taxes more progressive? That's redistribution of wealth.

Democrats are generally for redistribution of wealth. I'm for redistribution of wealth. Presumably you're for redistribution of wealth since you usually vote for Democrats. If you're not for redistribution of wealth, what were you thinking when you voted for liberals like Obama, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, or McGovern for President? (Obviously Bill Clinton was more centrist, though you could probably add him to that list too.)

Anyone whose main policy goals are minimal taxation and ending social programs that are slanted to the less-well-off should vote Republican, end of story. I don't see how any Democrat could be flatly opposed to redistribution of wealth.

Of course, most Republicans are for some kind of redistribution of wealth -- they're just less willing to admit it. Any humanitarian war by the US, for instance, redistributes wealth from rich Americans to poor people in foreign countries -- at best. Government funding for faith-based programs. And so on.

Cedarford, the vast majority of those people in the "top 5%" are not Warren Buffett, nor are they part of his paradox. Those in that paradoxical area are perhaps .5% of the total of all income earners.

Both you and FLS clearly do not understand that spreading discretionary income out equates to less spending. 1000 people will not spend all of the $13,000 per week in tax break they are getting. Likely they won't even spend half of it. One person, on the other hand, with that much discretionary income, would spend as much as 80 or 90 percent of it. That money would re-enter the productive economy.

I could continue on, but it's probably pointless. We are heading for the stagnant, negative economies and cultures of Sweden, Germany and France. Which is far worse for the average joe.

Of course, most Republicans are for some kind of redistribution of wealth

Most Republicans see the need for limited government and some limited social services.

Most Republicans are for voluntary giving, charitable giving, targeted giving: instead of involuntary taking (robbery) and redistribution to programs that are morally objectionable, wasteful, stupid or just not necessary, like Pelosi's mouse stimulus plan. I think you will find that Conservatives are statistically the most generous of all groups in their "voluntary" charitable giving.

Please note I make the distinction between Republican and Conservative. The two are not synonymous. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans. Just as there are the same shades of grey on the Democrat side.

Winger websites really should give a disclaimer on this silly crap they come out with every day. Like, "not really true, proof of claim not available, use only in like winger websites". You guys are friggin retarded.

Of course, most Republicans are for some kind of redistribution of wealth -- they're just less willing to admit it.

You may be right about Republicans in general but I think the smaller government types see a distinction between true wealth redistribution and simply placing a larger fiscal burden for the government's basic function on those with the highest incomes. After all, even the most ardent big-government conservatives or libertarians would jump for joy if we implemented a true flat tax, would they not? And yet that still causes most of the cost of government to be borne by the wealthy.

The key is in the definition of "basic" function of government. In effect those basic functions would be enjoyed roughly equally by all citizens, whether it is national security or basic infrastructure and regulation.

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association estimates that more than one million people are employed manufacturing, maintaining, flying and managing business aircraft. In addition to keeping legions at work in top-paying jobs, business aircraft facilitate and expand commerce for their users and contribute $150 billion to the American economy annually.

Here’s another thing: The aircraft and their systems are, for the most part, made here in the United States, by union and non-union workers, in places like Indianapolis and Cincinnati; Wichita, Kan.; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

And with their impressive performance and construction, they’re prized throughout the world. In 2007, about half the business jets delivered by American manufacturers went to foreign buyers that paid more than $3 billion for them. Manufacturers elsewhere, including in Japan and Germany, once tried to compete, but they were so utterly trounced by American ingenuity and craftsmanship that they simply gave up.

There are foreign-made business aircraft, to be sure; for example, Citigroup had planned to buy a Falcon, made by the highly regarded French company Dassault. But even those are stuffed with American-made avionics, engines, subsystems and interiors. Indeed, Dassault’s largest plant is in Little Rock, Ark., where some 2,000 workers complete Falcon interiors and ready them for delivery.

Ann. You voted for the smooth pragmatic redistributionist, did you not? You were sucked into the universal field distortion, were you not? You believed his supporters' denials during the campaign? Incredible!

Of course, most Republicans are for some kind of redistribution of wealth -- they're just less willing to admit it. Any humanitarian war by the US, for instance, redistributes wealth from rich Americans to poor people in foreign countries -- at best.

I wasn't aware that Republicans were famous for supporting humanitarian wars. Ok, yes, Iraq, but what's the OTHER example?

There are no conservatives who think the rich are all hard-working and virtuous. We own televisions. We've seen Paris Hilton.

The point is that hard work and virtuous behavior will increase your wealth. If you're born poor, that's rough. If you're STILL poor at age 40 it is almost certainly because of your own behavior and lifestyle choices.

Mark to Market rules are what have artifically devalued the securites which have an actual intrinsic value much higher than the current market. But we can't expect our Congress loons to understand this

My real estate broker doesn't understand this either. I tell him the actual intrinsic value of my house is much higher than the current market. But he simply points to the sales prices of the "comps," and tells me I have to face reality.

Similarly, my stockbroker didn't understand that the actual intrinsic value of my portfolio is much higher than what buyers are willing to pay for it today.

Perhaps you'd have been better off being a former history student. How exactly did those Latin American countries get that way?

From too much capitalism? Seems to me, they got that way from too much collectivism. Latin American countries have a habit of going back to socialism like a dog after its vomit.

You're focusing on the wrong end of the equation. It's not the top you have to break down. It's the lives of the bottom you have to work to bring up.

Unfortunately, Progressivism doesn't have too many ideas on how to do that, other than to pillage the top. (The obvious problem is that the bottom is the natural state. So unless you figure out how to get the bottom up to the top in the first place, you're going to run out of top soon enough.)

DBQ delivers the classic "Fuck You!" answer to those pointing out structural inequities in America.

However, I doubt that Warren Buffet is collecting W-2 wages. Besides if he is so concerned about it.....he is perfectly free to not use all of the tax loopholes and voluntarily pay more.He doesn't do that. Hypocrite.

"1933 version of DBQ.Dustbowlers. Fuck 'em. If anyone is really concerned about their fellow citizens, let them pay..I got mine, it's all mine! I have no obligation to others screwed by the system or their own f*cking bad luck!2001 version - Explain to me axactly why people so concerned about the families of victims of 9/11 cannot take care of them. No, they talk of involving me in something I take no responsibility for. Hypocrites!Present Day Structural version of DBQ -" And for every dollar his secretary earns I pay TWICE what she pays in payroll taxes. I bet she also doesn't have to pay for her own health care either.

Boo hoo for his secretary. Cry me a freaking river."

Magnitude of net amount of taxes paid means little, DBQ. Otherwise, Obama is nobler than you, Gates and Buffet...exponentially better a person on the DBQ-Warrens secretary scale of things.

You pay the same as him, Octo-mom, Buffets secretary on each dollar earned..maybe we can call it even-steven.The rest of the country is now migrating to a fair deal, not rule of the rich for the rich...

As per Warren Buffett. If he is earning his money from dividend payments, then taxes have already been paid on those earnings in the form of corporate taxes. He then pays additional taxes when the money gets into his hands.

That's the reason why taxes on dividends are smaller than taxes on other income. Increasing those dividend taxes creates a perverse incentive for companies to hold on to earnings, as the major stock holders would rather take their winnings in the form of more cash in the hands of the company and the resulting higher stock prices.

Buffett is a political creature too. He's been pushing for higher taxes on high earners, for God knows what reason. He can definitely frame his argument to make it appear that he's paying less in taxes than his secretary. But he's artificially drawing a line between his personal taxes and the taxes paid by the 38% of B-H he owns.

Winger websites really should give a disclaimer on this silly crap they come out with every day. Like, "not really true, proof of claim not available, use only in like winger websites". You guys are friggin retarded.

Maybe if you didn't have your lips vaporlocked on Obama's ass you might be able to read somthing once in a while.

My real estate broker doesn't understand this either. I tell him the actual intrinsic value of my house is much higher than the current market

You are an idiot. There is no comparison to the flucuating value or current market value of your house and a portfolio of assets that have a set value in the future. i.e. the maturity value of the bond at par.

" The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value including all aspects of the business, in terms of both tangible and intangible factors. This value may or may not be the same as the current market value"

No wonder the Democrats and Liberals like FLS are hell bent on destroying the economy. They don't have the first clue about finance.